The purpose of this study was to examine the technical features of slopes produced from the curriculum-based measurement in writing (CBM-W) word dictation task. Seventy-nine elementary students in the U.S. Midwest with intensive learning needs responded to weekly word dictation probes across 20 weeks; responses were scored for correct letter sequences (CLS). Scores showed evidence of high reliability and sensitivity to growth in a short period. Linear mixed modeling revealed that students gained an average of 0.91 CLS for each additional week of instruction. Initial writing levels and growth rates did not significantly differ depending on students’ demographic characteristics. Based on these findings, we illustrate how word dictation slopes can be used as indicators of writing growth for students with intensive learning needs.
AllenA. A.PochA. L.LembkeE. S. (2018). An exploration of alternative scoring methods using curriculum-based measurement in early writing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487177254
2.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390050401
3.
Al OtaibaS.RouseA. G.BakerK. (2018). Elementary grade intervention approaches to treat specific learning disabilities, including dyslexia. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(4), 829–842. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0022
4.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Psychological Association.
5.
ArdoinS. P.ChristT. J.MorenaL. S.CormierD. C.KlingbeilD. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.004
6.
BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D.AbbottS. P.GrahamS.RichardsT. (2002). Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500104
7.
BerningerV. W.AmtmannD. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 345–363). Guilford.
8.
BresinaB. C.McMasterK. L. (2020). Exploring the relation between teacher factors and student growth in early writing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(4), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420913543
9.
ChristT. J. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimating standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35, 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2006.12088006
10.
ChristT. J.ZopluogluC.LongJ. D.MonaghenB. D. (2012). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Quality of progress monitoring outcomes. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800306
DenoS. L.FuchsL. S.MarstonD.ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086131
13.
DenoS. L.MarstonD.MirkinP. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368–371.
14.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Council for Exceptional Children.
15.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K.ChiangB.LowryL. (1980). Relationships among simple measures of written expression and performance on standardized achievement tests (No. 20; p. 95). University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
16.
FildermanM. J.AustinC. R.TosteJ. R. (2019). Data-based decision making for struggling readers in the secondary grades. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451219832991
17.
FildermanM. J.TosteJ. R. (2022). Effects of varying levels of data use to intensify a multisyllabic word reading intervention for upper elementary students with or at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(5), 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211048405
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57(6), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700603
20.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.AllinderR. M. (1991a). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57(5), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700507
21.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.AllinderR. M. (1991b). Effects of expert system advice within curriculum-based measurement on teacher planning and student achievement in spelling. School Psychology Review, 20(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1991.12085532
22.
HamptonD. D.LembkeE. S. (2016). Examining the technical adequacy of progress monitoring using early writing curriculum-based measures. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32(4), 336–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2014.973984
23.
HintzeJ. M.ChristT. J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086243
24.
JungP.-G.McMasterK. L.delMasR. C. (2017). Effects of early writing intervention delivered within a data-based instruction framework. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916667586
25.
Keller-MargulisM. A.OchsS.ReidE. K.FaithE. L.SchandingG. T.Jr. (2019). Validity and diagnostic accuracy of early written expression screeners in kindergarten. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(5), 539–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918769978
26.
KranzlerJ. H.MillerM. D.JordanL. (1999). An examination of racial/ethnic and gender bias on curriculum-based measurement of reading. School Psychology Quarterly, 14(3), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0089012
27.
KretlowA. G.BartholomewC. C. (2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of evidence-based practices: A review of studies. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406410371643
28.
LembkeE.DenoS. L.HallK. (2003). Identifying an indicator of growth in early writing proficiency for elementary school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3–4), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770302800304
29.
McMasterK. L.DuX.YeoS.DenoS. L.ParkerD.EllisT. (2011). Curriculum-based measures of beginning writing: Technical features of the slope. Exceptional Children, 77(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700203
30.
McMasterK. L.EspinC. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410020301
31.
McMasterK. L.KunkelA.ShinJ.JungP.-G.LembkeE. (2018). Early writing intervention: A best evidence synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(4), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417708169
32.
McMasterK. L.LembkeE. S.ShinJ.PochA.SmithR. A.JungP.AllenA.WagnerK. (2020). Supporting teachers’ use of data-based instruction to improve students’ early writing skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000358
33.
McMasterK. L.ShinJ.EspinC. A.JungP. G.WaymanM. M.DenoS. L. (2017). Monitoring elementary students’ writing progress using curriculum-based measures: Grade and gender differences. Reading and Writing, 30(9), 2069–2091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9766-9
34.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards [English language arts].
35.
ParkerD. C.McMasterK. L.MedhanieA.SilberglittB. (2011). Modeling early writing growth with curriculum-based measures. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(4), 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026833
36.
PochA. L.AllenA. A.LembkeE. S. (2019). Scoring measures of word dictation curriculum-based measurement in writing: Effects of incremental administration. Psychology in the Schools, 56(5), 702–723. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22220
37.
PuranikC. S.LoniganC. J. (2012). Early writing deficits in preschoolers with oral language difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411423423
38.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear model: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
39.
RitcheyK. D. (2006). Learning to write: Progress monitoring tools for beginning and at-risk writers. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(2), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990603900204
40.
RitcheyK. D.CokerD. L.Jr.McCrawS. B. (2010). A comparison of metrics for scoring beginning spelling. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(2), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508409336087
41.
RomigJ. E.OlsenA. A. (2021). Technical features of slopes for curriculum-based measures of secondary writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 37(6), 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1860841
42.
SmithR. A.LembkeE. S. (2022). Technical adequacy of a spelling curriculum-based measure for English Language Learners in the first through third grades. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720930423
43.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20113
44.
TaylorR. (1990). Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: A basic review. Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, 6(1), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/875647939000600106
45.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2009). Students demonstrating persistent low response to reading intervention: Three case studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(3), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00289.x
46.
YeoS.FearringtonJ.ChristT. J. (2011). An investigation of gender, income, and special education status bias on curriculum-based measurement slope in reading. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023021
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
